The tactics of the globalist warmists are legion

In the comments to my previous post about the article on melting Arctic sea ice causing colder winters, by Richard ‘Black is White’ of the BBC, is this response from fellow blogger, Dephius, who writes:

AM, if you haven’t noticed it, I sense a paradigm shift in the trend of the BBC’s output. Its not so long ago that a report like this would have rammed the AGW message home loud and clear with several references to it.

Instead we have just one paragraph related to how man made CO2 might skew the natural pattern of global climate cycles.

When natural cycles and the effects of the Sun on global climate are given more emphasis than warmist dogma, I just wonder if we’re seeing the tide finally turning.

I’ve seen more emphasis given to Chinese (no friends of the AGW cult) climate research now too, which is interesting.

And then on another post prior to that, where I invited readers to forget the climate science feeding frenzy and focus instead on the real issue of the globalisation of government, which is using climate change as a justification for its development, commenter Karl Hallowell, contributes these thoughts:

I have to disagree. Not that there are ideologies that move to overthrow the current democratic order, but rather the claim that the strategy for dealing with them are flawed. Coming up with a policy attack -based vehicle for ideological purposes is not a trivial task. It’s not like guessing passwords or trying different keys in a lock. Each attempt takes a great deal of effort, communication, and coordination. And exposes the participants to risk of humiliation, disfranchisement, and even criminal charges, if they go too far.

Dealing with the attacks rather than the ideology has three strengths. First, it builds up a body of policy for when a valid weakness is found. Ultimately, having an established, democratic plan for dealing with valid environmental or societal problems will do more to cut off these attacks than fighting the ideology directly. Democracy by itself has done much to weaken the power of these ideologies, precisely because it provides conduits for debate and action that ideologues can’t bypass.

Second, they lose something every time they fail. The more they cry “wolf” the more they discredit themselves in future assaults. They don’t have infinite resources at their disposal.

Finally, it means that the strategy remains effective, even if the ideology mutates or is replaced. It works as well against would-be theocrats (of any flavor), Marxists, or any new ideologies that haven’t yet had a chance to rear their nasty, little heads.

Both are very good comments and worthy contributions to the debate. As I was about to write a post replying to these points I spotted a great blog post on Biased BBC by the ever excellent Robin Horbury. It addresses both points at once.

Firstly is demonstrates the shift in approach by the BBC, explaining the point raised by Delphius. As, for example, the comments section on Richard Black’s activist page are increasingly pock-marked with spaces where comments have been removed and comments that are allowed to remain that nevertheless pull Black’s warmist position and bias to pieces, the angle of the warmist attack has changed.

It seems the BBC is slowly giving up pushing such an alarmist narrative because it is increasingly rejected and derided by readers those who stop to think about the reality of the situation and provide counter evidence. Why waste time trying to convert people who refuse to accept the party line? Far better to seek the adoration of and nodding agreement of those who believe the alarmist argument on climate and stand to benefit financially from the UN mandated wealth redistribution programme under the guise of fighting climate change.

On to Karl Hallowell’s comment, the Biased BBC post shows that going toe-to-toe over the scientific arguments being used by the globalist warmists only serves to drive them down another avenue, while maintaining their direction of travel. The opportunity to engage and challenge the science is being removed from the sceptics while the globalist agenda is furthered in a different way.

Ultimately our money and resources are still going where the UN wants it to, and we will still pick up the tab for the alarmists’ policies as we are forced to pay for wind turbines that don’t work and CO2 emission measures that make no difference to the environment. Surely that demonstrates that focusing on holding the line in one theatre of battle is futile as the enemy troops elsewhere isolate you from the rest of the war.

Their tactics are legion. Until we stop tackling the climate science symptom exclusively and go after the political root cause of this agenda, we will be swamped and lose the war.

12 Responses to “The tactics of the globalist warmists are legion”

European leaders on Friday (2 March) could throw their weight behind a plan to convert the relatively powerless UN Environment Programme (UNEP) into a world body with the muscle to oversee treaties and protect the ecology.

It is the Left’s impatience to complete the Progressive Project which has inspired the employment of CO2-climastrology for a Final Push. I am hopeful that it was/is A Bridge Too Far, and the push-back is going to upend the Project, and expose the progressives’ scheming to the gimlet eye of the Internet and even the media (last but not least, quite).

The elections of the last few years have soundly rejected the Project/Cause as soon as it and its consequences became overt and obvious (from Canada to the US House to Spain to NSW in Australia, etc.) The 2012 US elections will be another big test of whether the poison is being thrown off.

What’s necessarily wrong with the “globalisation” of government? There was a time millennia ago when England was loose collection of tribes and cultures who had not much in common except inhabiting the same island. Was the eventual nationalisation of England an secret push for evil?

I am going to pick on a small but very vexing green energy policy which is morally repugnant and deviancy of a special kind, it is also utilises a form of reverse logic to the idea of the supposed ‘morality’ of saving the planet from the evil doings of mankind.
Our braindead politicians, all buy in to the flawed postulation: of man made CO2 is somehow [according to the IPCC models] going to result in runaway warming.
I could go on a rant – about MMCO2 and how it is a minor GHG and how it is not a major player or pollutant for that matter – and type all day long.

Even, if the postulation is correct, which it isn’t, the proposed palliative measures are a madness but fund the enormity of a quite unbelievable financial scam.
As the Germans are at this minute rolling back green subsidy boondoggles the only nation in the world setting out on a unilateral, self imposed lunacy of industrial suicide by way of green energy initiatives = Britain.

However, to the point.

As one travels to work or goes about one’s daily business, it simply cannot be helped to notice how many roofs are now covered in solar panels. All over, the newspapers and internet are full of ad’s blaring about the ‘benefits’ of photo voltaic cells. Worse still, is the fact that if you have these installed [ugly] ‘white elephants’: for many years your neighbours’ will pay you £1500/year for the pleasure of your solar powered hot water.

How’s that for a bargain, involuntary made [were we ever asked?] with our political devils?

The owners of such rooftop delights, secretly, can you smile that you are able afford to squeeze money involuntarily out of your neighbours and fellow citizens – whilst the many people paying your subsidy are; too poor to install the photo-voltaic panels, or that they live in flats, or that their houses are unsuitable for having these things fixed to their roofs – honestly its just taking the ****.
Is it not, also morally wrong – that our government extols and encourages such an iniquity because it believes in a fantasy? Furthermore, our government believes in saving the planet [don’t we care too? – they always care more than us……] because most of its members kowtow to the EU. Where, in the EU; the ‘Gospel’ and programme of CAGW and the ‘green agenda tablets’ are set in stone – irrespective of the real science, irrespective of how the people feel and how is that – for moral turpitude of a special kind?

One more thing, the manufacture of photo voltaic cells involves the mineral extraction of rare earths, in politically sensitive African countries where the local population is exploited beyond the pale [ie DRC] and is one of the most dangerously polluting, carbon intensive industries in the world.

Diktat, unscrupulous, perfidy and plain wrong – but our legislature, executive, PM and the whole administration: is fully signed up to the ‘green agenda’.

What’s necessarily wrong with the “globalisation” of government? There was a time millennia ago when England was loose collection of tribes and cultures who had not much in common except inhabiting the same island. Was the eventual nationalisation of England an secret push for evil?

Since you live in fantasy land, I invite you to read the stories of King Arthur, and how happy they were to be overrun by the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. And then, e.g., Ivanhoe, about how the Normans (having previously come down from Viking-land and conquored much of France) dealt with the Anglo-Saxons.

In any case, the available candidates for global governance are unelected and unaccountable, like the EU Commission (whose diktats the EU Parliament can neither suggest nor reject). The UN is numerically dominated by small abusive regimes, who do things like appoint Mugabe’s regressive and disasterously repressive government to head the Green technologies commission, and Sudan’s genocidal regime to head the human rights commission, etc.

The mechanisms of self-selection by which such wannabe “global governance” bodies are created and sustained are ideal playgrounds and tools for sociopaths who are life-long masters of manipulation by simulation of whatever the sheep want to see and hear. The chaotic, messy, fallible procedure called “elections” is the only tool which has ever been found that gives some hope of displacing them once they get a toe- and choke-hold.

And there is no slightest hint of electoral controls or restraints in the plans for global government. Have a look.

As with everything, follow the money. Previously it was the Americans, with their huge economy driving everything, then through the Late sixties and early seventies the Saudis and others started investing huge quantities of oil money in our economy, which eventually buys a lot of influence in higher circles. Hence the lack of action and media spotlight on Saudi human rights, or the crackdown on the protests in Bahrain that happens today.

Now, a new age is forming, with another huge economic investor in the form of China. I’ve noticed an increasing number of BBC programs referencing China in a positive light. Even Top Gear went to China to review Chinese cars for this current series! China’s influence is growing by leaps and bounds even here in the UK because money really does buy influence.

Of course politically the eco-taxes, tariffs and subsidies will continue because politics has a natural inertia, like steering a Supertanker. All the better to weaken our industry to the benefit of countries like…. China.

The fact the rest of the world has cried “enough!” at the EU’s tax grab of airline profits (with China a major dissenter) shows that the flow is shifting.

Delphius I agree with you to a point, but China and India are struggling to make the leap needed to be truly influential. Whilst our dopey political class has done its best to hamper us in the west, countries such as China may be large economies in absolute terms but they are not progressing enough as they are constrained by regulation and therefore are not so accustom to innovating. Innovation is seen as essential to progress, and it is not happening in China or India.